Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of depraved indifference murder beyond a reasonable doubt ( see, People v Morgan, 207 A.D.2d 501; People v. Sosa, 181 A.D.2d 532; People v Goode, 175 A.D.2d 181).
Moreover, since the defendant testified on direct examination to facts that were in conflict with evidence precluded by the court's Sandoval ruling ( see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), he "opened the door" to the admission of such evidence, and thus, he was properly subject to impeachment by the prosecution's use of the otherwise precluded evidence ( see, People v. Fardan, 82 N.Y.2d 638, 646; see also, People v. Morgan, 171 A.D.2d 698, 699; People v. Rios, 166 A.D.2d 616, 617-618).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.